Talk:Panthera leo leo

Page views
Leo1pard (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Merge?
Hello, ran into this article while doing New Page Review (articles that are expanded from redirects get added to the list, even if they existed before being turned into a redirect) and I noticed the dispute in the edit history. Per WP:CONTENTFORK it seems like the two articles in question should be merged into one. I don't have a position on which should exist, but I'm pretty sure that both shouldn't continue to exist. The resulting article should follow WP:COMMONNAME. I'm more than happy to help as a neutral third party, or you can ask for help at other dispute resolution boards. 15:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks a ton for your offer, !!! Since revision of lion taxonomy in 2017, a new vernacular name for the subspecies Panthera leo leo has not been proposed or introduced in scientific literature. Before the revision, the Barbary lion was considered the only P. leo leo population, but since the understanding of the subspecies's geographical range has changed, this name cannot be used as common name any longer, as it denotes only the Barbary Coast lions. Basically, I'm fine with merging under the page title Panthera leo leo : this scientific name is unambiguous. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * No problem, happy to help. After reading through more of the discussion in various places, Talk:Lion for example, I think you might need to start an RfC, bringing in people from WikiProject Cats probably, since this is spanning a range of different articles and it is probably a good idea to come up with a unified approach for all the articles. Still happy to help, but I think you need to bring in some people with more expertise in the area than me.   15:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You are surely right. In principle, lots of people had ample opportunity to involve in the dispute at Talk:Lion, but were smart enough not to. Whereas I was repeatedly pinged and was drawn between ignoring pings and replying. So please, if you can motivate other editors to contribute their opinions, that would be great!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I was going to say that I desired to redirect Panthera leo leo to Northern lion, and Panthera leo melanochaita to East-Southern African lion for reasons mentioned here, such as that the 2 subspecies were named,       and that 2 of these names have increasingly widespread application, like in this publication. And like I said before, there is ambiguity for the scientific names Panthera leo leo and Panthera leo melanochaita, because the Cat Specialist group could not decide where to put lions in Ethiopia or the Horn of Africa, because this region is where clades of lions belonging to the northern (P. l. leo) and southern (P. l. melanochaita) subspecies apparently overlap to form a mixed population of lions. Leo1pard (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Solution?
As mentioned before: I'm not interested to continue and repeat arguments of this dispute here, but to find a solution for the WP:CONTENTFORK. In your opinion,, would the following be a possible solution: to integrate the info from the pages Panthera leo leo and 'Northern' lion into the main article on Lion by creating subsections there, to which both pages AND all the other ones with obsolete (vernacular and scientific) names for THIS subspecies can be permanently redirected? And similarly for Panthera leo melanochaita as well? Many of the references used and respective info in the pages on subspecies are anyway repetitions of info already provided in the main article on the species. And I assume that readers who are interested in the species lion, may not bother to read repetitive and more detailed info. Looking forward to your reply, and of course also to opinions of other editors like -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Give me a few days, I have limited time for editing, and I will get a formal RfC put together. My plan at this point is to put it on the Lion talk page and to ping the science and style RfC lists.   18:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * No, the article on the species is supposed to be more general, not have every specific thing. The more specific details are in Northern lion and East-Southern African lion, which is what they are for. For example, East-Southern African lion would give you details regarding what George Schaller called the "Serengeti lion", and Northern lion shows that the name was actually used as far back as 1865, using this reference, and these are not things that you would get on the main article. Leo1pard (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think merging everything into the main article might make it too big, but perhaps a lot of the material is already there and repeated. An issue that needs to be addressed is what is known about particular lion populations and subspecies. For instance, a lot of studies have focused on the Asiatic lion in India. They are suitable for an article on the Asiatic lions, but shouldn't be generalised for all the lions now included in the northern subspecies. The behaviour of lions in India and Cameroon will be different, even if their genetic differences are small. Similarly there will have been lots of studies on lion populations in south Africa and east Africa and generalisation to the whole southern subspecies might be inappropriate. The studies on lions have either being on lions in general or on regional populations. There are probably none specifically on either of the two newly defined subspecies.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 07:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment to Jts1882's comment: I absolutely agree that the Asiatic lion article should not be merged with any other. And also that the West African lion one should be kept as a standalone. I too thought it a bad idea to merge the Southern African lion and East African lion into one. That's were the conflict about names started, as this move was not even proposed for discussion. Or did I miss such a proposal? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Another possible solution I would like to propose is : to compile all the info relating to taxonomy and phylogeography into ONE NEW article, e.g. titled Lion taxonomy, where all the detailed history and changes in taxonomy can be compiled. That way, it would NOT be necessary to repeat this in every article about regional populations. But instead, these can focus on regional-specific lion behaviour, ecology and conservation issues, about which there are quite a few recent publications. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A page on Lion taxonomy is the best solution. Many of the populations and subpopulations are of questionable notability, and best put in one large article where they can be discussed in context with each other. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for supporting my proposal!! I wonder whether you insist on a longer page title like 'Taxonomy of Panthera leo'? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this article is part of the solution, and the subpopulations should be arranged under this title. The compromise solution, at Lion, to split out facts on infraspecific descriptions is due in part to the obvious limitations of common names, so using the label 'lion' is not a good start. But I say again, if users accept the reality of these names and the authorities supporting them, the proper thing to do is use the systematic names for the title and all the content falls naturally into place [without elaborate, misleading or invented labelling with 'euphemisms for the abomination that is Latin and Greek words in our English language', a proven concept at wikipedia]. This article is a good place to show how that could work, and I hope that users working in this area will at least consider trying to use this to serve the readers with what they are looking for. If a few editors devoted their time to arranging the 'lion' articles to the appropriate taxon it would be solved in a week, knowing which source is relevant makes this a great deal simpler when we defer to the same system of nomenclature. — cygnis insignis 14:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

And what about the fact that the Cat Specialist Group expressed uncertainty over their revision of subspecies of lions, besides for other felid species, meaning that they couldn't fully resolve lion taxonomy, as signified by their use of a question mark on Page 72, and therefore, there is a need to state exactly what is the issue with populations or subpopulations which couldn't be resolved by the CSG's 2017 revision (and I have done that already)? Leo1pard (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you call it "Taxonomy of lion(s)" it allows you to discuss extra-specific taxa. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * But not specific information such as ecological differences between Asiatic and African lions, which is something that the very group that made the recent revision of subspecies in 2017, that is the Cat Specialist Group, were interested in, and because of this, see what I said in "Rejection of possible solutions" now. Leo1pard (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course the prose and cons of particular groupings can be discussed in a Taxonomy of lions page - in fact, better to discuss in a single page than across a bunch of subspecies pages Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks!!! Looks like we are on the way to a consensus, which I really appreciate! Would you and  be ready to contribute? I think a cladogram would be a great addition to such a page. !! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * As BhagyaMani said earlier, all of the information in the articles about the populations wouldn't fit under one heading in just one page. It's more than just about pros and cons of groupings, because information like their behavioral differences don't fit under the heading 'Taxonomy', and what I wanted to mention is that since BhagyaMani decided that Panthera leo leo and Panthera leo melanochaita should not be full articles, but stubs with links to the regional populations, I decided to do something similar for certain pages that I made, which information specific to the populations, such as behavioral differences between Asiatic and African lions, or differences between subpopulations of African lions, being left to the articles about the regional populations. Leo1pard (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Rejection of possible solutions

 * No, because:


 * 1) The articles Northern lion and East-Southern African lion are far more than just about taxonomy, and issues like characteristics and ecology do not fit under the heading 'Taxonomy'


 * 2) The 2 subspecies of lions, have separate histories of taxonomy, though some, like that of the Somali lion (formerly P. l. somaliensis or P. l. webbiensis), may be treated as part of both, as they are shown by genetic analyses to be related to both, and it should be clear which formerly described subspecies or populations go where, but the issue of genetic admixture or overlap between the 2 subspecies in northern parts of East Africa means that you cannot always delineate which population goes to which subspecies, and putting all this together could make it complicated for readers.


 * 3) The articles Northern lion and East-Southern African lion are not mere repetitions of what is in other articles, because they also have their own information, for example, that the name of the former goes back to 1865, and that names of the latter subspecies like "Eastern-Southern African lion", or the constituent populations in Eastern and Southern Africa do exist in literature, just because the CSG revised subspecies of lions in 2017 doesn't mean that people won't refer to the populations by their names,   and this holds true for members of other felid species, one of which you were recently involved with, people are interested in specific details like that. Leo1pard (talk) 10:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that trying to shift all the relevant information in Northern lion and East-Southern African lion to the main article would be too much for the main article, like shifting all the relevant information in Asiatic lion to the main article would be too much, but disagree that there have been no studies for either or the 2 newly defined subspecies. Bauer, Barnett et al. did refer to Eastern and Southern African lions collectively, and East-Southern African lions constitute what is now recognized as the 'southern' subspecies, and regarding what is now considered to be the 'northern' subspecies, after the relationship between the North African and Asiatic lions was made clear, assessments have linked West African and certain northern Central African lions with the Asiatic and Barbary lions, which is what led to the latter 4 being considered as one subspecies. Leo1pard (talk) 08:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That said, the articles Northern lion and East-Southern African lion are not mere repetitions of what is in the main article, and I reject the assertion that just because proper names like "Northern lion" "Eastern-Southern African lion" date to the time before the recent revision by the Cat Specialist Group (2017) makes them 'obsolete', on grounds that the person who said this himself used a proper name for another felid subspecies that was used before the revision of 2017, and that the recent revision is not necessarily going to stop people from using those proper names,     or that they have increasingly widespread application, therefore, that people are interested in specific details like what are Eastern or Southern African lions, therefore, Panthera leo leo and Panthera leo melanochaita should be shifted to the more detailed articles Northern lion and East-Southern African lion, respectively. Leo1pard (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Given that "Northern lion" and "East-Southern African lion" are the new common names for Panthera leo leo and Panthera leo melanochaita, respectively, I think that the information currently in the Panthera leo leo and Panthera leo melanochaita articles should be included within the "Northern lion" and "East-Southern African lion" articles, respectively, and that Panthera leo leo and Panthera leo melanochaita should redirect to the "Northern lion" and "East-Southern African lion" articles, respectively. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The team of 23 authors who revised felid taxonomy (Kitchener et al. 2017) did NOT use or propose a new vernacular / common name for any of the 2 lion subspecies. Nor did the 11 authors (Bertola et al. 2016) who worked on lion phylogeography. None of the above mentioned names have been used in scientific publications since the revision, hence they are not common names. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Like I said before, the CSG did not use any proper name for any subspecies of felids, but that does not mean that for example a subspecies of the leopard was not called the "Far Eastern leopard" for example, something that you yourself were keen on, and you have admitted that I was right that Barnett et al. used "Eastern-Southern African lion" for the southern subspecies, what else do I need to say here? Leo1pard (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * You don't need t say anything here. Just note that the name Far Eastern leopard has been established in scientific literature for decades. Just have a look at refs provided in resp. wiki page -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And likewise the names of the Eastern and Southern African lions, for example. Leo1pard (talk) 05:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No they haven't - these names are not highly notable nor easily defined. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Search names like "East African lion"   and "South African lion"   and you should get a lot of results. Leo1pard (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Do those citations provide an opinion on common names and their correlation with the formal names, or do they merely mention the location of the subject. If it is the former, a direct quote would save lot of discussion, the latter, along with search page results and page view data, scraping references for any incidental mention of a term is likely to be OR. — cygnis insignis 14:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The newspaper articles and blogs do NOT use these vernacular names in conjunction with scientific names, i.e. NOT in combos like 'South African lion (Panthera leo melanochaita)', but refer to locations. In scientific literature, the scientific (Latin) names are not used in conjunction with vernacular names. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * All I see is reliable and unreliable sources, and a separation between scientific and some notion of everyman literature something I hear but not seen in my sources. A good text on Lions may use the vernacular terms however they wish, but it only applies to that context because they also provide a static definition that is aligned to current taxonomy, another author can do what they will with their names if they provide a citation to the first two or three words of the same description to communicate with other authors: Panthera leo leo, without looking I already know something about this subpopulation of Panthera leo. cygnis insignis 15:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

In his book, Jackson listed the 8 commonly recognised subspecies with their Latin names, including P. l. nubicus for the East African lion, P. l. bleyenberghi for the Katanga or Southeast African lion, P. l. krugeri for the Transvaal or Southeast African lion, and P. l. melanochaita for the Cape lion. Similarly, Schofield used P. l. bleyenberghi for the Angola lion, P. l. melanochaitus for the Cape lion, P. l. nubica and P. l. massaicus for the Masai or East African lion, and P. l. krugeri for the Transvaal or South African lion. As for Dubach et al., they used the name "East African lion", besides mentioning that 9 subspecies of lions were recognised for East Africa (and I mentioned the Tsavo lion, Masai lion (P. l. massaica), Ugandan lion (P. l. nyanzae), Sotik lion (P. l. hollisteri), Kilimanjaro lion (P. l. sabakiensis), and populations in Northeast Africa, the Nubian lion (P. l. nubica), Somali lion (P. l. somaliensis syn. P. l. webbiensis) and Ethiopian lion (P. l. roosevelti). Punetor i Rregullt5 (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

By the way, the Cat Specialist Group continues to recognise the Asiatic and African populations, despite their revision of subspecies in 2017. Take the article about the Asiatic lion for instance, they mentioned that it was now recognized as belonging to the subspecies Panthera leo leo. Leo1pard (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Change
Anyone interested in what has been discussed so far this topic, and wishing to engage with me in this, please come here. If anyone does not want me to engage with me in this, then I prefer not to engage with that person, but that people should see what goes on there, as it may affect what happens here. Leo1pard (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Explanation of Edits on Panthera leo leo
Hi There, Could you please explain the edit you did on Panthera leo leo on the 29th of September at 21:36 GST, I would like an explanation as to the need to blank most of the article.

Denver&#124; Thank you (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi I'm happy that you first thought it better to keep the looong version, which I had compiled over many days. Today, I split the content into Central African lion, and checked that relevant parts are provided in West African lion and the other pages on the P. l. leo populations. But if you or anybody else thinks it necessary or relevant to keep the loong version of Panthera leo leo, that's fine with me too. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Well yes I had earlier a feeling about the need of keeping the whole article but since you have already split the content, I feel it’s very much justified to honour your work and effort and keep it the way you have. Thank you for your efforts and Happy Editing! Denver&#124; Thank you (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * added above from my talk page -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC); moved up to keep above comments from my talk page together. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

other comments

 * However, there is a problem with what happened here and elsewhere, not all Central African lions are purely of the northern subspecies (Panthera leo leo), because a number were found to be related to the southern subspecies (Panthera leo melanochaita). Leo1pard (talk) 10:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And all these names, both vernacular AND Latin, are not valid any more today, i.e. since 2017. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A problem for your insistence on the use of the scientific names Panthera leo leo and Panthera leo melanochaita is that the Cat Specialist Group expressed uncertainty regarding lions in Ethiopia or the Horn of Africa, and the lion is not alone amongst felids in this regard. In addition, people continue to call populations of lions or felids what they would call them as, such as "East African lion"    and "South African lion"   regardless of what the Cat Specialist Group classified as valid subspecies. Leo1pard (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am still not clear on what the alternative proposition is, though I admit to being blinkered by the effective solution used elsewhere and baffled by whatever is motivating this debate and gibes at respondents; the solutions being opposed can cite someone expressing uncertainty about the validity of a group's proper description (if it satisfies notability) and inclusion in the article. The sources and commentary filling this page are not clarifying anything to me, they seem to be only tangentially related to any 'problem' that I am not perceiving or trying to envisage. And I have not added anything I have not said above, so I'll keep quiet unless any other firm and actionable proposals emerge. Kudos to those who are working toward building consensus and solutions based on best practice. — cygnis insignis 19:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I have neither seen an alternative proposition as solution. When I proposed a page Lion taxonomy, I had in mind to collate this info into just one page: see these diffs for P. l. leo and for P. l. melanochaita. With all this history in one page, it would not be necessary to repeat it in the pages about regional populations, so that latter can focus on regional-specific lion ecology and conservation issues. I hope you understand that I’m tired of unconstructive debate and will only go ahead when there is consensus and support. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Because BhagyaMani decided that Panthera leo leo and Panthera leo melanochaita should not be full articles, but stubs with links to the regional populations, I have decided to do something similar. As for the northern subspecies (P. l. leo), since it includes the Asiatic lion, what I thought was that information that is relevant to the Asiatic lion and not the African lion should be kept in the article about the Asiatic lion. Leo1pard (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Your article Central African lion clade is more appropriate for this than Central African lion, because the latter is about the population that was shown to be related to both subspecies, whereas the former is specifically regarding the clade that you talk about. Leo1pard (talk) 10:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And when I mean 'information', I mean full and factual information that reflects what sources say, even if different, not WP:biased information like that all Central African lions are of the northern subspecies (P. l. leo) (the Central African lion clade is more appropriate for that if you want to talk specifically about lions in Central Africa that are of the northern subspecies, because when the term "Central African lion" was used in 1939, it was not used specifically for lions that would be found by later genetic tests to be linked to the northern subspecies), that Nubian lions (formerly P. l. nubica) from the Northeast African region shared by Egypt and Sudan are Barbary lions, that all Sudanese lions (historically including part of the Nubian population) are Central African lions (which geographically doesn't make sense since Sudan is in Northeast Africa rather than Central Africa) or that all Congolese lions (formerly P. l. azandica) are Southern African lions. Leo1pard (talk) 08:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is going in circles and repeating content and refs of pages. Therefore, I'm not interested any longer, and even less in WP:TLDRs and suprfluous images. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Alright, then let me proceed with the necessary changes when and as needed, and if you want to say something, then please talk to me in relevant talk-pages, like perhaps this. As it is, the CSG used a question mark for a reason. Leo1pard (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue here is Leo1pard is that you seem obsessed with recognising as many subspecies or populations as possible as distinct, even when later evidence contradicts them. This is a problem as it does not reflect current thinking. History is littered with overzealous splitting and recognising of dubiously distinct taxa. By insisting on various lion subpages, one is giving the (in some cases incorrect) impression that these are distinct entities. This is misleading. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you mean 'various' as in 15 or above, I did not even insist on that much. I didn't say that I would create articles for all the populations that were decribed as subspecies. Leo1pard (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment
Please see/contribute to discussion at Talk:Lion Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Move to Northern lion
This paper calls P. l. leo the Northern lion. I would suggest to move the Article to this lemma. best--Altaileopard (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We had looong discussions about this, see in the archive of the lion talk page, and decided to use the Latin names of the two lion subspecies. One peer-reviewed article using a vernacular name doesn't make this a common name, imo. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Allright. Not very intuitive for "normal people" I guess, but I can understand. I am also not a fan of the new taxonomy. I would have preffered a split into six living subspecies (corresponding to the genetically identified clades), which is of course tricky in the kruger NP and Chobe area, where two clades mix. But actually already the original publication implicates the two names "....We support the revision of current lion taxonomy, as recognition of a northern and a southern subspecies" (Bertola et al., 2016).  And I can not think of another plausible name for the current subspecies apart from Northern lion and southern lion. Well, I think more papers will follow. .. Best, --Altaileopard (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Lead image
well we can discuss here on what the lead image might look like, right? We're equal and hold the same weight of opinion! The current lead image looks bad and even the other Asiatic lion article doesn't use this image we got here, that being said, we don't need to use an image that represents a population that we've dedicated a completely separated article. Some1 {talk} 16:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The Asiatic lion image in the infobox is a gorgeous image of both a male and female lion. And the Asiatic lion is, for the time being, a valid population of P. leo leo. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I also like the present image of the pair and think it NOT necessary to show a 2nd image. – BhagyaMani (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

lead img
File:Axar Tour Std-12 (77).jpg I propose this as a lead image, because the current one is not that good of a quality to be put in the taxobox. — Some1 {talk} 12:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As already mentioned in previous section, I still prefer the present img of the pair in the taxobox. – BhagyaMani (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, no. The present image is superior in that it shows both a male and female, the male of which is standing, showing both the build of the front half and the characteristic mane. The proposed image shows neither as clearly, and fails to stand out well against the background. SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Comparison of 2 individuals
Punetor i Rregullt5 repeatedly added a collage of 2 individuals with the caption P.l leo (up) in comparison to P.l. melanochaita (down). Note the larger tail tuft, sparser mane on the head and prominent fold of skin on the abdomen of the former. I do not recall any scientific publication supporting such a claim. It would need a statistically relevant sample size of individuals of both subspecies to analyse and compare differences in tail tuft and mane size. If anyone performed such an analysis, then please add this references, before posting this collage again. Any comments ?? – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah that'd need more citations to back it up. SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)